California AG Kamala Harris has raided the home and seized video footage of an independent advocated/journalist who did secret sting videos of Planned Parenthood, the exact same sort of advocacy journalism pursued legally (without legal harassment) by any number of Leftish groups in California and elsewhere (I doubt Ms Harris plans to raid the home of PETA activists who trespass on farms to secretly film chicken and pig breeding).

It turns out there are strong speech protections in this country, except when you are a professional, and then there are none.

And of course, I still am fighting against a libel lawsuit meant to force me to remove this product review.

When the student replied that he has a right to argue his opinion, Ms. Abbate responded that “you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.” The student reported the exchange to Marquette professor John McAdams, who teaches political science. Mr. McAdams also writes a blog called the Marquette Warrior, which often criticizes the Milwaukee school for failing to act in accordance with its Catholic mission.

Mr. McAdams wrote on his blog that Ms. Abbate was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” His blog went viral, and Ms. Abbate received vicious emails. She has since left Marquette.

But now Marquette is going after Mr. McAdams. In December 2014, the school sent him a letter suspending his teaching duties and banning him from campus while it reviewed his “conduct” related to the blog post. “You are to remain off campus during this time, and should you need to come to campus, you are to contact me in writing beforehand to explain the purpose of your visit, to obtain my consent and to make appropriate arrangements for that visit,” Dean Richard Holz wrote.

Lol, the university is going to prove he was wrong to write that universities avoid dialog in favor of saying "shut up" by telling him to ... shut up or be fired.

By the way, since nowadays it seems that supporting someone's free speech rights is treated the same as agreeing with that person, I will remind folks that having led a pro gay marriage ballot initiative briefly in Arizona, I am unlikely to agree with someone who thinks it should be banned. But so what? I would have absolutely no problem arguing with such a person in a rational way, something that faculty member Ms. Abbate seemed incapable of doing. While I might disagree with him on any number of issues, Professor McAdams was totally right to call her out. Besides, is the Left's goal really to take all opinion with which they disagree and drive it underground? Force folks underground and you never know what will emerge some day. Things like.... Trump supporters.

It is amazing to me that universities have become the least viable place in the US to raise and discuss controversial issues in the light of day.

The brief time I led the Equal Marriage Arizona efforts to amend the Constitution to allow gay marriage was a real eye-opener for me. Â I expected that since I was not a member of the largest gay activist groups, I might have to work to build up trust. Â But it turned out, trust was not an issue. Â I seldom had anyone question my sincerity. Â However, I quickly found all the major gay rights groups (excepting the ACLU, bless their hearts) not just neutral or skeptical but actively opposing our effort. Â Several people in these organizations dragged me in the figurative back room and explained that the leadership of their group would never accept a non-Democrat getting credit for such a success. Â And one member of prominent organization (hint: Â has same initials as Hillary Rodham Clinton) told me that their internal position was that they did not want gay marriage to come to Arizona until after 2016 because they wanted Hillary to be able to run on the issue and hoped to flip AZ blue in 2016.

So, a couple of years ago I would never have believed this story, but now it seems all too familiar

Just this week, legislators introduced a bill that would encourage drug companies to apply to sell contraceptives without a prescription.

But if Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, along with four other GOP senators, were expecting flowers from Planned Parenthood and others for their bill, the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act, they should brace for disappointment. Suddenly, the idea doesnât sound so great, and the former supporters arenât mincing words.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the bill is a âsham and an insult to women.â

Karen Middleton of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado even got personal, saying, âCory Gardner canât be trusted when it comes to Colorado women and their health care.â...

Beneath the fear-mongering lies the more likely reason for the change of heart on the left. The bill was simply introduced by the wrong party.

MPs gave the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill a third reading by 301 votes to 229, a majority of 72.

Shadow minister Dominic Grieve said the bill would not improve race relations.

But Minister Paul Goggins said: "I believe we need to
take on the hate mongers, whether they are terrorists or whether they
are extremists."

The bill would create a new offence of incitement to
religious hatred and would apply to comments made in public or in the
media, as well as through written material.
The plans, which have failed to make it through
Parliament twice before, cover words or behaviour intended or likely to
stir up religious hatred. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by
race-hate laws.

I can't think of anything more dangerous than placing any such restrictions on speech, especially when the standards against which speech will be judged are so ambiguous and open to interpretation. As someone who often utters statements and supports concepts that many consider "extreme" (and here), it is very worrisome to see politicians attempting to ban "extreme" speech.

There are so many ironies in this I can hardly count them, but here is one: The left typically are primary supporters of these prohibitions on hate speech. Under the British law, half the management of organizations such as Planned Parenthood who often criticize the religious right and religious organizations could probably be heaved in jail.